On the Emergence of Mahayana Buddhism by Yoshifumi Veda, Translated by Dennis Hirota
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
On the Emergence of Mahayana Buddhism by Yoshifumi Veda, translated by Dennis Hirota esearch on the early development of Maha Mahayana, lIthe great vehicle," is that it leads all Ryana Buddhism has advanced rapidly in beings to true and real enlightenment-not only recent years, and many hitherto obscure facets of certain people, but any person whatsoever; it have been brought to light. But there appears moreover, it does this unfailingly. When Maha to be, among Buddhist scholars, a single, common yana Buddhism first arose, it labeled all the pre understanding concerning the origins of Mahayana ceding Buddhism the "small vehicle," implying about which I have basic doubts_ Although there that such Buddhism was inferior because it lacked are variations in expression among individual this capacity. The person who walks the path of scholars, we fmd a general consensus that Maha Mahayana is called "bodhislzttva" (being of yana Buddhism was amovement that arose among enlightenment). The spirit of the bodhisattva is lay Buddhists_ Professor Ryiijo Yamada, for expressed as "benefiting others," by which one example, writes: brings all other beings across to the other shore, the world ofnirva(la, before crossing over oneself. A movement to return to the fundamental teaching arose among the laity as distinct It is said that in the Hinayana path, one strives from the community of elders_ This move to escape from this shore of SI1~ra and attain ment labeled the sectarian Buddhism, which the other shore, and there is no vision of the had fallen into a kind of conceptual play people remaining on this shore as oneself. The through emphasis on debate and disputa bodhisattva, however, possesses precisely this tion, with the name "small vehicle" (I1ina vision; hence, he cannot cross rust to the shore yana), and its own outlook was that of lay of nirva(la, and yet neither is his "benefiting believers who were absorbed in reverence others" a form of self-sacrifice for the sake of for the founder (Sakyamuni). This was a others. Mahayana transcends the dualism in which matter of returning to the realization of self and other are separate. It delves to the root the law of interdependence_ The term reality in which both self-benefit (attaining "emptiness" (Siinyatiij came to represent nirvi(la) and benefiting others (bringing all the fundamental concept of the new move sentient beings to nirvii(la) are established together ment_ Most scholars have taken this per as one and identical. The bodhiSllttva does not, spective concerning the origin of Mahayana like those of the Hlnayana path, discard this shore Buddhism. (emphasis added; Daijo bukkyo and pass on to the other; rather, he brings all seiritsuron josetsu) people of this shore to the other. According to the religious philosopher Keiji Nishitani: As Yamada states here, most scholars, with minor variations, have accepted this understanding of [The bodhiSllttva I stands in the position of the origins of Mahayana. a ferryman who passes back and forth between this shore and the other. This is a The emphasis on laity is, in one sense, under stance founded on going and returning standable. The distinguishing characteristic of between shores. Such a stance is, among 3 the world religions, a highly unique one At present the origins of Mahayana Buddhism are found only in Mahayana Buddhism. thought to extend back to the first century B.C. The Mahayana sutras profess to be the teachings The attitude of the bodhisattva is expressed in of the Buddha, but they appear in large numbers the phrase, "Sa'11sQra is itself nirviI)a." That is, one after another over a lengthy period extending the mundane world is itself the realm of perfect to the seventh century A.D. Until long after wisdom. Sakyamuni's death, then, it was possible for siitras to appear as the Buddha's teaching. Moreover, The essential spirit of Mahayana is manifested not only the body ofMahiiyana siitras as a whole, in concern for a Buddhist path for the laity; but even individual siitras often appear to have hence the prevalence of the supposition that it been formed by gradual accretion and expansion. originated among the laity itself. The fundamental Such a process in the formation of a sacred canon position of Mahayana, however, should not be is surely unique in the history of religions. It is understood as one of lay religion. It does not as though the Bible or the Qur'an were to appear stand on a dualistic opposition of monk and lay in numerous different versions in quick succession. and establish itself on one side; rather, it trans cends such dualism and attaches no significance The IDnayana canon represents the teaching to the distinction of monk and lay. This position of Sakyamuni Buddha as formulated from mem arises naturally from the fundamental Mahayana ory after his death by his disciples; it has, as the stance expressed "Sa1(lsara is itself nirvil}.a." This Buddha's teaching, been haoded down to the nondifferentiation of lay and monk in Mahayana present, and there is nothing in it that stems from thought is seen in such Indian Mahayana scriptures a later date. The Mahayana scriptures, however, as the V'UTIIJlakTrti·siitra, and its most thorough· did not appear until hundreds of years after going expression is found in the Buddhism of Sa:kyamuni's demise, and even from the perspec Honen and Shinran. tive of content, they differ completely from the IDoayana scriptures. Since the Mahayana siitras To return to the problem of the ongm of cannot be considered the direct words of Sakya. Mahayana, the view that it lies among the laity muni, we must assume that people other than raises several fundamental questions that touch Sakyamuni composed them, and that the authors on the very nature of Mahayana. Is it, for example, of the early forms of the Prajiiaparamitii-siitras actually possible for "believers" or U}aity" to were the earliest Mahayana Buddhists. have created a new form of Buddhism? Even if we accept that Mahayana could not have arisen Who, then, wrote the Mahayana siitras? I will from the monks, there is still some question not consider here what specific group those whether we should therefore seek its origins authors belonged to or their relations to groups among lay believers. Below, I will treat two basic that existed during Sakyamuni's lifetime. These problems: the nature of the authors of the Maha are possibly important problems, but my basic yana siltras, and the nature of the awareness of concern here is more generally whether the one's form of Buddhism as Mahayana. authors of the earliest Mahayana siitras (the early versions of the Prajffiipiiramitii, Lotus, Garland, WHO WROTE THE MAHAYANA SUTRAS? and other siitras) were people who could be de scribed as "believers" or "laity," or whether they Firm evidence for the establishment of Maha· were another kind of people. This is because the yana Buddhism is found in the appearance of issue I wish to pursue lies less in the historical Mahayana siitras; outside of such writings, we background of Mahayana than in its fundamental have no direct information concerning the origins nature. I raise the question of the nature of the (of Mahayana). It is generally accepted that the authors as a means of approaching the larger earliest such sutras are the Prajfiaparamita-sutras. question of how we are to understand the basic 4 nature of Mahayana. those concepts and ideas are Mahayana concepts differing from those of Hinayana, it is impossible Most scholarly works dealing with the problem that they be the products of Hinayana followers. of the formation of Mahayana state that the early Neither can they be the products of believers who Mahayana siitras were either written or gathered stand in the position of accepting the Buddha's and shaped by lay believers (some scholars also teaching as truth. It is precisely because the include progressive monks). In other words, in Buddha's teaching includes truths so profound contemporary scholarship, the thought of early that they cannot be fully grasped or understood Mahayana is understood as something that people that they can only be accepted and believed. Since described as believers or laity were capable of the Buddha's teaching comprises concepts and formulating. Professor T. Kimura, for example, ideas born from the experience called perfect writes: enlightenment, believers who have not yet experi· enced perfect enlightenment have no choice but They (the instigators of the Mahayana move· to accept. Here, Uprogressive monks" or "lay ment) formulated and collected, in the bodhisattllas" may be substituted for the term name of Buddha, the thought which they "believers"; in not yet having become enlightened themselves believed to be the Buddha's ones, there is no essential difference. Regardless true intent, and further, they asserted that of whether they have abandoned home life or not, it was those writings, rather than the scrip believers, monks or bodhisattva, have the aware· tures treasured up to then (the. Hinayana ness that they are not Buddhas, and people with siitras, precepts, and treatises), that better such an awareness would surely fmd it unthink expressed the Buddha's true intent. able to place themselves in the position of Buddha, whom they revere, and compose siitr3s in his It is assumed here not only that lay followers name. were capable of composing the siitcas, but further that the siiteas could be written by people who Even without stating as bluntly as Kimura that were aware that they themselves had not attained "they formulated and collected, in the narne of Buddhahood. Needless to say, believers and lay the Buddha, thoughts which they themselves followers-those who take refuge in Buddha and believed to be the Buddha's true intent," if one who accept the BUddha's teaching-are not asserts that the Mahayana movement was insti· enlightened ones (BUddhas).